Book Reviews

---

Colin Bernreuter
10/26/13
C.S. Lewis
Dr. Menuge
NORMATIVE NECESSITY
The argument for Naturalism is based on the idea of Cause and Effect. A certain event happened, and that event was caused by another event, which was caused again. C.S. Lewis argues that when we reason or think, we cannot simply be doing it as an effect of a prior event, such as the chemical reactions in the brain. That may be part of it, but there is more. It is not the whole picture of “Nature”.
He gives an example of flipping coins and particles moving in the atom. He states “If the movements of the individual units are events ‘on their own’, events which do not interlock with all other events, then these movements are not part of Nature. It would be, indeed, too great a shock to our habits to describe them as super-natural. I think we should have to call them sub-natural. But all our confidence that Nature has no doors, and no reality outside herself for doors to open on, would have disappeared. There is apparently something outside her, the Subnatural; it is indeed from this Subnatural that all events and all ‘bodies’ are, as it were, fed into her. And clearly if she thus has a back door opening on the Subnatural, it is quite on the cards that she may also have a front door opening on the Supernatural—and events might be fed into her at that door too.” (Miracles, pg. 9)
This means, in fact, that whenever we reason or think, we go beyond the natural process of cause and effect and move in what he calls ground and consequent. The principle of normative necessity applies to logic here. Logical operations like A=B, B=C, therefore A=C are not a cause and effect relationship. Formal argumentation—the controlled drawing of consequences from a set of premises—is a tool. We engage in it not for its own sake, but because we think it is useful for telling us what we ought to believe. We infer correctly when we infer in a way that is conducive to this goal. The beauty of A=B, B=C, and A=C is that is necessarily follows itself. The power of this goes beyond cultural norms or biases. If we were to go another world or universe, 2+2 will always equal 4.
The Naturalistic response that Lewis states explains that our reasoning faculties are a result of natural selection and experience. The problem with this is that while it may indeed be advantageous to survival, it has no impact or claim on truth. If my logical and rational thought is the product of mindless, unguided processes, what gives me any confidence to believe they are correct? This is the same argument that Richard Dawkins uses. He states “Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.” (The Selfish Gene, 1989) He agrees that there is something unique about humans, our ability to think rationally and go against nature in the way of our genes.
I think Lewis’ argument would stand up against modern Naturalists, especially with the breakthroughs of biological science in recent years. It is a very powerful argument that hits the very core of our being. The idea of free will is null and void when everything, according to Dawkins, “a result of our selfish genes”.
The point is that naturalism is precisely a worldview that entails our reasoning processes being the product of irrational causes. One’s beliefs are determined, not by following an argument to its logical conclusion, but by the chemical processes in the brain, or the psychological processes in the subconscious; in which case, they are the product of irrational causes. So, according to naturalism, “The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of bone is pressing on his brain.” (Miracles, pg. 27) And again, if no beliefs are rational, this would mean that belief in naturalism is not rational; thus, it refutes itself. 

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR